Yes, the expression “gross mismanagement” is one that's defined in the act, and his view was that it did constitute gross mismanagement. I don't necessarily agree with his decision that it fits the definition.

Because gross mismanagement is.... Most statutes leave room for interpretation, but it doesn't matter what I think. The Auditor General made the decision that it fit the definition, and I respect that.

On the basis of the information gathered during this investigation, we concluded that the...Commissioner committed wrongdoings as defined in subsections 8(a) and (c) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

In other words, it was delaying a decision, ensuring that the PSIC managers understood and followed through on their responsibilities, and not having a process in place to manage declared conflicts of interest.

I want to underline that last part a little bit. You're applying to be the conflict of interest commissioner.

Okay, but you'd been in the position.... I'm just doing the sequence of time to understand. I know AG reports sometimes cast further back, but this AG report and this particular criticism of not having that policy on conflict of interest written down was at least for the two years—not three years, but two years for certain—under your watch.

Okay. In an earlier response to a question about continuing the investigations, you were not definitive. You said essentially—and I don't want to put words in your mouth—that you wanted to look at the evidence that Ms. Dawson had accumulated on the investigations under which Mr. Morneau, the finance minister, and Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister, are right now. Is that—

Ms. Dawson and others have argued that the act needs to be fixed and not left to the discretion of a new appointee coming in, and that as in a court—as you as a jurist know—any judge coming in midway through a case would be committed to following through on the case. Yet for this commissioner, you have the discretion. It's in your power, and you're not able or willing to commit to following through on these investigations.

Do you think the act needs to be fixed to ensure that investigations continue, regardless?

I frankly don't have a view at this point in time, because I have not studied in depth everything that has to do with the act. I know that Commissioner Dawson has made several recommendations for amendments. That's—

Let me ask you about another recommendation Ms. Dawson has made, because you're applying to be her replacement. She has suggested that the conflict of interest be expanded to include entities, so-called numbered companies, that can receive benefit from a member but that don't fall under the act because they exist as an “entity under Canadian law”, even though all the benefits might flow to that member.

You know, based on my knowledge of Ms. Dawson, I would agree prima facie with the recommendation, because she is very effective, so if she made that recommendation, it most probably makes sense. However, I would like to see the foundation upon which it was based.

I have seven minutes to decide whether or not we should hire you. It's a strange scenario. When I'm hiring somebody, I like to give them scenarios to see how they would judge things.

It's a scenario in which the person who is in charge of the hiring process for a new Ethics Commissioner is the same person who is publicly defending the Prime Minister and the finance minister, who are under an ethics investigation. Do you see any potential conflict of interest in the scenario I just described?